my county and within a couple of [applause] now, i am here. what are we going to do? there werego, meetings like this held in america. that time was in difficult straits, as we are today. so, people met and talked with each other and tried to decide what would we do? how would we create? what are we going to create for the future? what kind of nation would there be? what we do today. those minutemen and founding fathers and founding mothers created a vision of a nation where people could live in governmentve without breathing down their next, without government puts on their

backs, without some government thinkers taking their pockets, without the government telling them how to educate their children, without some government dictators selecting their doctors for them. government, nono government. central to their vision was the concept of very small government. today -- their vision has become a nightmare of government intrusion into every minute aspects of our lives and those are the days of revolution, those minutemen were warriors. it was their sacrifice, it was ther energy that threw off yoke of oppression of king george. today, my brothers and sisters, you are -- you in this room -- are the minutemen.

it is out of these days of oppression that we in this room must create a new vision of liberty and freedom, a new america of freedom. [applause] we have had almost a decade of hope and change. it seems like so much more, so much longer. [laughter] toing for a job and trying -- >> we will leave these remarks at this point. see it in its entirety at www.c-span.org. to president obama now. he is at fort belvoir signing car --eran's health health-care bill. the am transitioning out of army. this bill will allow veterans like me to receive timely and world-class medical treatment.

even though i am transitioning out of the army, my main goal is to remain active in the veteran community. no veteran should have to wait they earned.nefits let me say that again, because someone did not get that. [applause] somebody did not get that. i will say again -- no veteran should have to wait to receive care and benefits they have earned. and that is what this bill is about. simply taking care of our veterans. [applause] so, without further ado, ladies and gentlemen, please rise -- please rise and give a warm welcome to the 44th president of the united states of america,

president barack obama! [applause] >> hello, fort belvaux are -- belvoir! [applause] everybody have a seat. takenk i'm going to sergeant major mcgruder on the road. [laughter] i need him to introduce me wherever i go. he got me excited. and i get introduced all the time. so, thank you, james, for your incredible service to our country.

give james a big round of applause. [applause] i also want to say a big thanks to america's new secretary of veterans affairs, bob donald -- bob mcdonald, who is here. [applause] bobsome of you may know headed up one of the biggest, most successful companies in the world, but he also was a west point grad. also a ranger who served valiantly on behalf of of his country. this is a labor of love for him and he has hit the ground running. he is heading out to va hospital's around the country, heading out to phoenix tomorrow. thank you, bob, for taking this challenge and making sure we do right by our veterans. i know you are going to do an

incredible job. [applause] i want to thank all the members of congress here today. i especially want to thank those who led the fight to give water give bob and the be a more resources. senator bernie sanders, senator richard burr, representative mike michaud, representative jeff miller. give them a round of applause. thank you. thanks for the good work. and we are all grateful to our outstanding veterans service organizations for all the work they do on behalf of our veterans and their families. thank you very much to all our veterans and their families. i want to thank buchanan, sergeant major turnbull, all of you who serve here at fort belvoir.

for nearly a century the space has helped keep america safe and secure. 70 years ago, forces from here were among the first to storm omaha beach. recently many of you were deployed to iraq and afghanistan and have used your lives to defend our nation. as a country, we have a sacred obligation to serve you as well as you have served us. an obligation that does not end with your tour of duty. every day, hundreds of thousands of dedicated public servants at us honor those commitments. at va hospital's across america, you have doctors and hospitals delivering care to veterans and families. you have veterans who are profoundly grateful for the good work done at the v.a., and as commander-in-chief, i am grateful, too.

over the last few months, we have discovered inexcusable conduct at some of our v.a. facilities, veterans waiting on care they needed, long wait times being covered up on the books. this is wrong. this is outrageous. and working together, we set out to fix it time a do right i our veterans -- we set out to fix it, do right by our veterans, no matter how long it took. we have held those responsible for misconduct. some have been relieved of their duties. the investigation is ongoing. we have reached out to veterans, making sure we're are getting them off wait lists and into clinics inside the v.a. system. we are instituting a critical altar of accountability. and

rebuilding our leadership teams, starting at the top with secretary mcdonald. his first act -- he has directed facilities to hold town halls to hear directly from veterans they serve, to make sure we are hearing honest assessments about what is going on. -- in a few minutes, we will take another step. i will sign into law a bipartisan bill -- that does not happen often -- passed by congress. [applause] it is a good deal. this bill covers a lot of ground . from standing survivor benefits to educational opportunities, to improving care for veterans struggling with dramatic brain injury and victims of sexual assault. focus on the ways

this bill will help ensure veterans have access to care. first of all, this will give the v.a. more of the resources it needs. it will help the v.a. hire more doctors and nurses, staff more clinics. as a new generation of americans returned home from war and transitions to civilian life, we have to make sure the v.a. system can keep pace with that new demand. keeping in mind i have increased since ifor the v.a. came into office by extraordinary amounts. but we also have extraordinary numbers of veterans coming home. so, the demand, even though we have increased the v.a. budget, is still higher than the resources that we have got. this bill helps to address that. second, for veterans who can't get timely care through the v.a. , this bill will help them get the care they need somewhere

else. this is particularly important for veterans and more remote areas, rural areas. if you live more than 40 miles from a v.a. facility or v.a. doctors cannot see you within a reasonable amount of time, you will have a chance to see a doctor outside the v.a. system. and we are giving the v.a. secretary to hold more people accountable. we are giving bob the authorities so he can move quickly to remove executives who fail to meet the standard of competence the american people demand. if you engage in unethical practice, if you cover up a serious problem, you should be fired, period. it should not be that difficult. [applause] and if you blow the whistle on in unethical practice or bring a problem to the attention of higher-ups, you should be thanked. you should be protected for doing the right thing.

you should not be ignored. you should not be ignored. you certainly shouldn't be punished. her who shallm or have borne the battle. that is the heart of the v.a.'s motto. this bill i am about to sign will help us achieve it. at but let's be clear. this cannot be the end of our effort. implementing will take time. it will require focus on the part of all of us. even as we focus on urgent reforms we need at the v.a. right now, particularly around forget our we cannot long-term service goals for our veterans. the good news is we have cut the disability claims backlog by more than half. but let's now eliminate the backlog. let's get rid of it. [applause]

the good news is, we have poured major resources into health care. is, we have helped get thousands of homeless veterans off the street, made an unprecedented effort to end veterans homelessness. we have zero tolerance for that. but we have more work to do in cities and towns across america to get more veterans into the homes they deserve. we have helped more than a million veterans and spouses go to college under the post-9/11 g.i. bill. but now we have to help even more of them earned her education and ensure they are getting a good bargain in the schools they enroll in. we have rallied companies to hire hundreds of thousands of veterans and their spouses. that is the good news. help of jill biden and

michelle obama -- two pretty capable women -- [laughter] they know what they are doing and no one says no to them, including me. but we have to help veterans it new careers in this economy. america has to do right under all of those who serve under our -- proud flag. congress needs to do so, also. i urge them to approve my nominee forced the secretary of , joel in the v.a. schwartz. my nominee for cfo, jill tierney. each of them have been waiting months for a yes or no vote. they are ready to get to work. it is not that hard. tocontinues to be this hard get someone confirms who was well qualified. nobody says they are not. it is just -- the senate does not seem to move very fast.

as soon as the senate gets back in september, they should act to put these outstanding public servants in place. our veterans do not have time for politics. they need these public servants on the job right now. [applause] me wrap up by saying -- two months ago, i had the chance to spend time with some of america's oldest veterans. one of you may have seen television the celebration, the commemoration of those 70thdible days, the anniversary of d-day. this was my second visit to democracy's beachhead. this was the second time i have gone as president. it is a place where it is impossible not to be moved by the courage and sacrifice of free men and women who volunteered to lay down their lives for people they had never met. ideals they cannot live without.

that is why they're willing to do these things. and some of these folks that you met, they were lying about their age -- they were 16. at the beach or sometimes behind the lines. the casualty rates were unbelievable. back there brought memories of my own grandfather who marched in patton's army and then came home and like so many veterans of his generation, went to school, got married, raised families. he eventually helped to raise me. normandy, ivisit to brought some up today's service members with me. because i wanted to introduce them to the veterans of d-day and show the veterans of d-day that their legacy is in good hands. that there is a direct line andeen the sacrifices then the sacrifices folks have made

in remote places today. because in more than a decade of war, today's men and women in uniform, all of you, you have met every mission we have asked of you. today our troops continue to serve and risk their lives in afghanistan. it continues to be a difficult and dangerous mission, as we were tragically reminded again this week in the attack that ourred a number of coalition troops and took the life of major general harold greene. our thoughts and prayers are with the families. now, ourhs from mission in afghanistan will be complete and this war will come to an honorable end. in years to come, many from this generation will step out of uniform. properlyhis country

repays their heroism, there patriotism, their sacrifice, that is in our hands. wem committing to seeing fulfill that commitment. the men and women of this generation, this 9/11 generation of service members, are the community leaders we need for our time -- community leaders, business leaders, and i hope leaders in politics as well. tom the greatest generation the 9/11 generation, america's have been called to serve. i have no greater honor than to serve as your commander-in-chief . as long as i hold this office, we are going to spend each and every day working to do right by you and your families. i am grateful to you. god bless you. god bless america. with that, i am going to sign this bill. thank you very much. [applause]

>> this is good work. thank you. [indiscernible] i want more. i want more. i tell folks -- it?d, isn'tis you should do this more often. everybody on the committee did good work on this. i want to thank everybody. this is good legislation that

will help. [applause] ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] president wrapping up belvoir int virginia. the next few weeks he will spend time vacationing with the first lady at martha's vineyard in massachusetts. coming up, live coverage of the discussion on the israeli -palestinian conflict posted by the washington institute. former special envoy to the middle east dennis ross will take part in a conversation called "gaza -- from fighting to cease-fire." the ebola virus will be the topic of a house subcommittee hearing. -- frieden will go before the panel. eastern. start at 2:30 we welcome your comments from twitter using #cspanchat. a reporter covering key

elections joined us on this morning's "washington journal." ayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayat thing to watch in tennessee today and specifically who is the most important person to watch? >> i think the most important thing to watch in tennessee today is going to be the senate race. senator lamar all ex-and, he has been involved in tennessee poll continues for over 40 years. he is running for a third term and facing a pretty aggressive challenge from the tea party candidates, the most serious of his challengers is joe carter. mr. carter has gotten the

support of some prominent members of the tea party, sarah palin endorsed him. radio personality laura ingram has endorsed him and came to tennessee and held a rally for him a few weeks ago. mr. carr has been going across the state telling people that alexander is a dc insider, no longer represents their interest. he has a difficult time getting out because he doesn't have a whole lot of money, but he has run an aggressive campaign, and that is the one that i think that most people are going to be paying attention to tonight. host: are outside groups giving mr. carney help? >> somewhat, yes. as i said laura ingram came into town, came into tennessee and held a rally for him. there has been -- there have been other outside groups that have done some on the ground campaigning for him. but he really has not gotten the

kind of support on the ground support that a lot of people thought that these groups would give him in tennessee. host: as far as polling and things of that matter where does it place senator alexander? >> it looks like he probably will win it. there was polling done back in the early spring and those polls gave senator alexander a comfortable lead. there hasn't been a lot of independent polling done since then. the campaigns, of course, have their own polls. senator alexander's campaign leaked one of their internal polls a couple weeks ago that showed him with a 30-point lead. joe carr thinks the race is much closer than that. i think most of the people expect senator alexander to win comfortably. host: who will he face if he wins? >> there are two democrats in the race, and they're both

attorneys. and they are -- their names artery adams and gordon ball. the democratic primary has not really gotten a whole lot of attention in this race, and most people think that senatorial alexander is probably going to win a third term. host: district four there is a race that has drawn a lot of primary challenges. for those of who not be following, what goes behind this race when it comes to the representative itself? >> this race has gotten probably more attention than any other horse race, at least outside of tennessee. the reason for that is that mr. dejerl is in fight of his life, running against a fellow republican by the name of jim tracy, a member of the tennessee general assembly, a state senator. the reason this race is getting a lot of attention is because of

some personal revelations about congressman dejerl's personal life, that came to light just a few days after he was re-elected in 2012. he had gone through a very difficult divorce a number of years ago, and his divorce records were unsealed just shortly after he was re-elected. and in these records, they showed that the woman that he was married to at the time, this is not the woman that he's married to now, the one he was married to at the time had gotten a couple of abortions with his approval. he is a physician and he also admitted in those divorce papers to having extramarital affairs with a number of his patients. all this is real problematic if you're a pro-life family values congressman as he has positioned himself. now people had kind of written him off and just assumed that he would lose in the primary, but in the past few weeks he -- his

campaign showed signs of life. he outraised mr. tracy in early july, which is -- would seem to indicate that you know, he does have some momentum here. and voters in interviews have kind of given the indication that they are in a forgiving sort of mood. so he -- some people think he may well pull this race off. host: michael collins with memphis commercial appeal. he's their washington correspondent talking about primary day in tennessee. >> tonight at 8:00 we will show tennessee. from we will show you a debate between two candidates vying for a hawaii senate, also. us then a reporter will join to look at the most competitive races this fall. we will take your calls and tweets.

is in recessress this month, c-span prime time programming continues with a summit in denver. madeleinea rice and albright on the situation in ukraine. and on saturday ronald reagan biographer edwin noris. >> this month, c-span presents debate on what makes america evolution, and genetically modified foods. new perspectives on issues including local warming, voting rights, fighting infectious disease, and food safety. and our history tour showing america'ssounds from historic places. -- our tvvs coverage

schedule one week in advance online. join the conversation. like this on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> and we are live now at the washington institute for near east policy. two former figures in the past negotiations will comment on the violence and current truce that is now in its third day. retired general michael herzog and former middle east envoy dennis ross will talk about the potential for a longer cease-fire and attentional issues at stake. -- potential issues at stake.

>> good afternoon. good afternoon and welcome to the washington institute'. shh. good afternoon and welcome to the washington institute. i am the director of the institute. i am delighted so many of you could be here on this bright and sunny august afternoon. this is --

automatic playback there. special event. this event is beaming live on and throughout the internet, being live streamed, ati would be grateful, just the outset, i would be grateful if everyone could turn their cell phones to mute or vibrate. to tweet as you like, but please keep the sounds off. when we first organized this event, the original invitation escalates,"isis because there was another in a series of projected cease-fires and continuing rocket volleys, tunnel activity, and israeli retaliation. thankfully we can now change the thrust of today's discussion

from an assessment of the shooting to a discussion of the inking, to what is going on cairo, what is going on on the ground between israel ease and palestinians, what is going on in the capitals that matter. one of which -- although certainly not the only 1 -- is washington. we are very happy to have associated with the institute incisive and experienced veterans of the cicely this sort of situation. -- of precisely this sort of situation. people who have seen this from the ground up and have negotiated cease-fires and agreements of even longer duration in years past. just flew in this morning from israel, where he has been an intimate observer of the events of the last month.

mike is the wilson fine fellow here at the washington institute. of staffrved as chief to five israeli defense ministers. he is a retired brigadier general in the idf. i am very glad mike could join us. ambassador ross, a davidson distinguished scholar and fellow at the institute, has served multiple administrations of both broader dealing with a range of middle east issues, especially on the peace process. he of course, left of the obama administration after serving the white house, first in the state department, and then in the white house as the director for the central region on the national security council. dennis is just completing a fascinating book, which will have a fascinating connection to

today's discussion, because it is a book on the history of our american administrations have dealt with the u.s.-israeli relationship and the revolving issues and problems that seem to .eriodically crop up and they have cropped up again this time. first i'm going to turn to mike. then we will turn to dennis. then we will open up the floor for discussion and debate on the prospects for a durable cease-fire. what needs to go in and what is likely to come out. mike? >> thank you. good afternoon. it is a pleasure to be here. let me start with a caveat. while we are all talking about the cease-fire in gaza, as you say in this country, it eight over until it's over -- it ain't

over until it is over. there are direct negotiations on the terms of a sustainable cease-fire, and hamas obviously displeased with what is going on in cairo, threatening if the terms are not met, tomorrow they may resume fighting. and also orchestrate some demonstrations in gaza, calling on the hamas government to continue resistance. while i think it is more likely than not they will abide by the cease-fire, as i said, it ain't over until it is over. this is the third round israel has been forced to fight in gaza over six years. israel unilaterally withdrew from gaza in 2000 five. hamas took over in a bloody coup d'état in june 2007. since then, israel has been forced to fight three armed

conflicts in gaza. in first was operation -- december 2 thousand eight. including a ground operation in gaza, 22 days. that resulted in nearly four years of cease-fire along the gaza border. the second operation was in november 2012. , israel had a rocket system that of salted of the need to launch a ground operation in gaza. it went on for eight days and resulted in a cease-fire of just over a year in seven months. and this is been the third longest and the bloodiest round of fighting. the mainne of characteristics of this confrontation is it was fought in a totally transformed strategic landscape, compared to

the previous two rounds. you have the muslim brotherhood ousted from egypt. let's not forget that hamas is an offshoot of the muslim brotherhood movement. hamas drew lessons from previous rounds and strengthened itself to look terribly. i think the main characteristic comparing this round to the previous rounds is entered itnet -- while it is politically and financially at a much weaker point than in 2008 or 2012. it was on the verge of bankruptcy. strongerst, much militarily. hamas lost egypt as a result of the coup d'état in egypt. it reached financial bankruptcy

to the point it could not pay salaries to public employees. especially since egypt not only closed the crossing border, but also destroyed most of the were the tunnels which source of hundreds of millions .f dollars to hamas hamas also lost some iranian support because it would not support assad and the war in syria. it was more difficult for its traditional supporters, kabul and turkey, to provide support while egypt blocked the border, and i think it was also isolated regionally. the fact of the matter is doing -- during this confrontation you did not hear an uproar concerning what was going on in gaza. in fact i think there were much more, many more demonstrations in europe against what israel is

doing a gaza than you saw in our world. on the other hand, hamas strengthened itself militarily. they doubled their arsenal of rockets. they extended their range. they established a line of rockets in gaza, which was not there a few years ago. they built a very extensive maze of underground tunnels, both defensive and offensive. i think it is one of the discoveries of this war that there is a whole underground city in gaza of underground tunnels, defensive tunnels. the leadership hid, which allow forces fight and move from one theater to another, and offensive tunnels built into

israel -- this was a national project from the palestinian side. they spent years, millions of dollars, building materials like and so on. as it will real -- as israel built its operation it was obvious these were planned to kidnap or kill israelis. in fact, hamas has special elite units trained for kidnapping israelis. big guys who were trained. the tunnels, we found tranquilizers and so on. we found motorcycles. all for the purpose of kidnapping israelis. is this dichotomy between hamas strengthening itself militarily and it being weakened politically and financially?

i think this is yet another failure ofon of the islamist movements and the middle east to reconcile governance with their ideology, and ultimately ideology prevails. as far as hamas is concerned, they essentially maneuvered into an unprecedented financial and political crisis. they invested a lot of money, , butn the gazan population arming themselves and building capabilities, preparing for the next round of confrontation with israel. they actually brought upon closure of the border crossings by firing rockets. once they finally maneuvered themselves into economic and

political bankruptcy, they tried to maneuver themselves out of this crisis by firing rockets, not at egypt -- even though egypt close the border on them and was the main cause for their financial backward see, but israel for obvious reasons. prepared themselves advance for this confrontation. there is evidence that they were talking about the confrontation in july. it was preplanned in order to extricate themselves from a crisis. they tried initially to do so by a reconciliation bill with abbas. that failed when he refused to pay salaries for employees and toa, and ultimately decided initiate this round of confrontation. about say a few words israel from: the confrontation.

israel's goal was established from the outset as establishing a cease-fire with a weakened the mosque. obviously this is somewhat amorphous. israel did not say how long it expects the cease-fire to hold. that is something you can only judge with the passage of time. clearly in the israeli mindset to reach a sustainable cease-fire, you have to degrade, seriously degrade hamas's military capabilities and ultimately impact his motivation to use violence yet again. goals are notel's defined as destroying hamas. only weakening hamas. that is because while israel can go into gaza and the straight requirehat would conquering the gaza strip, staying there for a long time. i would say at least a year. some israelis believe three years.

you compare what happened in the west bank, when israel went in, and operation defensively in 2000 two, to stop suicide bombing attacks, it took us dismantle most of the terror infrastructure and the west bank. gaza is much more complicated, densely populated. and hamas is stronger, much stronger. , and the factt that conquering gaza would come with a high price of casualties also theides, it was challenge of an exit strategy from israel. ultimately, who do you handed over to? i do not think they would like to go into gaza under is really banners. they may find themselves ultimately facing numerous

groups, including jihad e-groups jihadi grooves. even though there are heavy public pressures on governments to go all the way, stop this threat once and for all, they complete this work by dismantling hamas's capabilities. israelisou will note are somewhat skeptical whether the decisive victory has been achieved. that is because they have become accustomed to violence every few replay of this experience. many israelis believe the only we will absolve ourselves of this threat is to go when and

destroy hamas. one final note -- while the initial goal remains all along long-termhing deterrence, which as i said, was somewhat amorphous, there was one complete goal throughout the operation and that is following israel's ground operation in gaza, more and more tunnels were discovered. israel added a specific goal, which is to destroy all offensive tunnels dug into israel. and we have said repeatedly we will not leave gaza until we do this. to me, this indicates by the way that while israel new about the about theew -- knew tunnels, knew a lot about the tunnels, it has not internalized the threat of the tunnels. were ready to go for a

cease-fire before the ground operation, but come us was stupid enough to reject that. was stupid enough to reject that. let me say something about the interim violence. waslieve that hamas severely beaten. they lost a considerable amount capabilities of according to israeli intelligence. they lost about 70% of the rockets. nearlying they had 10,000 rockets before this round directed. 300 rockets. several thousand rockets were destroyed by israel, well over 3000. left withe still

maybe 3000 rockets, but we lost they lost about sydney 3% of the capabilities and about 77% of their rocket production abilities. they lost almost all of their offensive tunnels. this was a national project. in the crown.ewel they spent millions and millions of dollars. i am not sure we discovered 100%, but definitely nearly 100% , and they lost that. variety ofa offensive operations, and all of them were thwarted, including sending armed groups into israel, including twice sending drones into israel, including naval commandos on our beaches. they were thwarted. and some other offensive operations were thwarted. they faced a hostile egypt.

they were forced to accept a cease-fire along the egyptian proposal which they have rejected numerous times. -- they cameosal to egypt under the terms of the cease-fire. they rejected it all along. now they are in cairo under the cease-fire and they do negotiate along with the egyptian proposal, and i believe also we pay a price in terms of public opinion in gaza itself. while the public blames israel for the destruction, they also blame hamas for the construction. on the other hand, they did efficiently, they did inflict casualties on

israel. 63 soldiers and civilians, more than any previous round in gaza. much more. their senior leadership was in walker's, hiding behind the a population. they did manage to get international airlines to stop flying to bangor in -- ben gui , which again, i think was for them. that said, i believe hamas was severely beaten, and i believe while judgment can be made only over time, there is, i think, a reasonable chance that this time israel may succeed in establishing a long cease-fire given the fact that hamas is weak politically and financially. given the fact that egypt is

willing to play a major role in blocking the border and preventing the rearmament of the fact thaten other regional actors are willing to play a role in a sustainable cease-fire arrangement, including other arab states, and potentially also the palestinian authority. let me say now a few words about some other conclusions from this war. first is to do with the nature of asymmetric warfare. this actually has been the fifth toe that israel was forced fight an asymmetric war with nonstate actors. it was targeting its civilians while hiding behind civilians. the first war and the second intifada when israel was forced to stop the flow of suicide bombers into our cities and to launch an operation into the west bank.

the second war, they had three rounds in gaza. i think we can learn from this , this is becoming a bigger and bigger challenge for israel to fight this kind of war, because this kind of war is not militaryded by excellence. and israel is much stronger militarily than hamas. that is obvious. but because such a war involves civilians. hamas built all of its capabilities inside urban areas populated areas. they launch rockets from civilian populated areas. .heir leadership hides behind they have fired for months. it is a major challenge to distinguish between civilians in such a war. on one hand, you don't want to give immunity to people who are

hiring the guys who were firing on you. on the other hand, you don't want to harm civilians. on one hand, you want to score a decisive victory. de-establish the terrorists. if you do not, you will find yourself fighting again and again, rounds of asymmetric war. if not, civilians will pay the price. this is becoming more and more a challenge for israel. i think what we saw here was , its embedding itself capabilities and civilian populated areas in a way that made it very hard, in fact impossible in some cases, to distinguish between civilians and non-civilians. they booby-trapped houses. they urge the population not to

heed israel's call to leave their homes. started with air strikes, they are limited because you do not want to harm civilians who are hiding behind high-rise buildings. when you launch the ground operations, the forces have to protect themselves against booby-trapped houses, snipers, antitank rockets. they have to use fire in order to do this. so, this is becoming increasingly challenging. i don't know of the some 1800 gazans who were killed, how many were really civilians and how many were arms activists. i will withhold judgment until this is analyzed carefully. according to israeli sources, 40%, 50% were armed people.

israel does not target civilians. israel uses tactics to drive civilians away, including phone calls, text messages, radio messages, and so on. hamas pressures people not to leave their homes. and i do know when soldiers are fired upon, they return fire to the sources of fire. so, i believe this is a major challenge. it has become increasingly so. by the way, if you look at the picture from gaza, how come you of a see a picture combatant kill? as though nobody was fighting there? only civilians killed? i think that is because hamas

was to betray the picture that we target civilians and kill civilians. in fact if you follow the website of the ministry of the interior, they are taught even not to disclose the names of those killed, because they want to paint the picture that only civilians were killed. some brief political conclusions, as it were. first, egypt emerged as the key actor in this and past rounds. i think what we saw in this round is egypt re-assuming a leadership role, regionally the leadership role. and you saw, i think tom a a converging interest -- i think, a converging interest between israel and egypt and other , and i believe

the united states was less relevant in bringing about a solution. that is very unfortunate. it did expose some tensions in israeli-american relations. the defense domain was untouched. they supported much-needed funding for the iron dome and allowing israel to use stockpiles of munitions and israel, but politically, this exposed some tensions and differences. and i must say, understanding unnecessary leaks to the press about what went on between the two governments, but some people in our government asked the question whether the united as part of theas problem or part of the solution?

and there is a sense in some people here in washington, that they believe hamas would be part of the solution. maybe they believe that working with the muslim brotherhood-like encounteruld help more extreme versions of islam like isis and jihadist groups. in any case, i think the question that must be posed is, who do you want to be in power following this round, and to do you want to weaken? i think israel would definitely want the united states and regional actors to help weaken benefit andy do not will not be empowered by using violence. and all other actors in the region -- and work through this

converging interest with egypt, saudi arabia, jordan, and others. a word about the palestinian authority. i think what we saw during and following this rounds is that while the pa is a very weak actor and came under tremendous domestic pressure to sympathize , at the population in gaza a certain point he closed ranks with hamas, a scented to their demands, and led some anti-israel diplomatic efforts in the international arena. nevertheless, i think there is a --sensus, including including in israel's government that the pa, mahmoud abbas, play a role ind weakening hamas and bringing

about a sustainable cease-fire. this means if you are going to open passages, he should play a role. he should control the passages on the palestinian side so they and you see some transformation in thinking our government two months ago when have lost in the reconciliation deal and israel's attractive. now they see it as a possible vehicle in bringing about sustainable cease-fire in the passages leading to gaza. and challenging humanitarian support and assist -- assistance to gaza. it does not translate into thinking in israel that maybe we can use this to rearm the

palestinian peace talks but certainly to give have lost the role in gaza, a foothold in gaza. i would say if there is going to be an international project to under securityza arrangement, thought should be to theo going back in the westproject bank started by a former prime establish in the west bank. finally, how will the cease-fire arrangement look? i think it will include long-term goals and short term goals. long-term goals both parties facilitiesto abstain

against each other. and it should include the opening of passengers from allow moreael should humanitarian assistance to go to gaza, which when the border was normally closed every day over 200 truck went into gaza, even during this war. over 1500. israel could expand. the border should be open on condition that it is controlled on the palestinian side, and all of this should be done under strict security arrangement to make sure it is not used in order to smuggle weapons or to

other than housing projects for their own population. that should be as expected and prevent it. the long-term goals should be full rehabilitation of gaza. that land should be contingent on demilitarization of gaza. theypeople suggest that should realize hamas will not disarm entirely. i do not see any outside force that can do it, except israel defense forces, which as i said gaza.r, would require in principle it has to be

supported by the international community. and shorterm vision goaledium-term practical should be to prevent the rearmament of gaza and egypt should and i believe would play a key role. , as i said, this was the longest and bloodiest rounds which was forced on israel. unfortunately you are facing daunting dilemmas on how to and inflict losses on the other side without harming civilians, how to bring about a cease-fire, which is sustainable because if you cannot do it, the alternative is to destroy gaza. how do you weaken hamas but do

not destroy so that on the day after hamas has an interest in forcing the cease-fire? are a fewse challenges ultimately i believe long-term only. you will be solved only when the moderate the list in the and -- palestinian leadership takes over. it is not in the cards right now but i hope in this future it may be. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. you should realize mike flew in this morning so i think his performance was quite well done. he just flew in and his arms are still tired. and could not be here. i want to pick up on on a number of things mike said but i want

to approach it from somewhat of a complementary standpoint. i will address a number of questions briefly. first of all, i want to reinforce something he said by focusing on why did the conference -- conflict happen and why didn't happen now? secondly i want to address what was the dog but did not bark and the implications of the dog not parking? third, i want to spend more time on looking at what the conflict revealed with hamas and the approach him and lastly, five on what theons obama administration should be doing or at least what are the strategic considerations and objectives at this point? let me start with, why did it happen now? how hamas hadut planned this and i had a conversation with a very

prominent palestinian who said things that were quite similar. he said basically hamas did it deliberately. was not about israelis arresting them in the west bank. ,ot about israeli opposition about hamas being in a terrible situation politically, meaning it was isolated, and the financial situation that was disastrous. lyrically and financially -- politically and financially bankrupt. focusing on the desperate situation hamas found themselves in and did not have a lot to lose, but they planned this. what was that they hope to achieve in carrying out this round, launching of this round. the first thing they hope to be able to do is to put the palestinian authority deeply on the defensive. was theyn obviously

were not providing salaries. the reconciliation agreement had in partpted by hamas, because they did not want to assume the responsibilities for governance. it had not done very well then. did not want to be responsible for picking up the obligations. even while it did not surrender. and the weapons were retained for leverage on the pa and use against the israelis. it helps it would create a rallying cry around them throughout the iraq world. if one of the aims was to rally them around it, that did not

succeed. that was the dog that did not bark. realize in ato sense, many of us to a focus on what is going on in the aftermath of the arab awakening, the struggle that we seek, on the one hand there has been a preoccupation with looking at how the gulf states and egypt -- the gulf states have been prior with iran, but not only. they see a struggle with the muslim brotherhood. so as they contend with a landscape with on the one hand they are engaged with the struggle with uranian's, they are also engaged in an exit stencil struggle with the muslim brotherhood and the key to that is to ensure no one who is part of the muslim brotherhood does well. when they looked at the conflict, what is that they

fair too see? it is not say somehow they were not critical, they were. look at the language, look at what much of the media and the gulf was saying to me you look at what some of the leaders are saying, of course they were critical of what was happening to palestinians within gaza. they were also highly critical of hamas. they constantly blamed hamas. i appeared on a panel with the egyptian ambassadors, and he focused on the theme that had the egyptian proposal for a adopted when first presented, a lot of lives would have been spared. the focal point of the criticism was obviously hamas. you see with the gulf states and egypt as part of a larger struggle is to make sure hamas does not gain.

does not gain politically, militarily. what might part of be described as a broader, strategic realignment that is taking place within the region. so third question, what has been what id about hamas? think mike was saying about how hamas has embedded itself quite consciously in populated areas, how it don't the extraordinary labyrinth of tunnels to protect the command control, leaders, thaters, it is interesting none of the tunnels were prepared to defend the patent -- palestinian population. i frequently been asked about the us a multi-the similarities and the casualties. that israelsting

developed an elaborate civil defense system. it is focused very heavily on ensuring the population gets into shelters, leaving aside iron dome and the value of that, and hamas has created a structure of design to protect fighters, leaders and rockets, deliberately basically exposes the population. that is kind of a given the that is kind of a given. the other thing worth calling attention to, and i say this specifically as a lesson i learned, i was one of those constantly talking to israeli leaders about the need to provide more materials to gaza. needed to do more to ease the situation in gaza. i was constantly -- constantly emphasizing the difficulty of life and importance of israel finding ways to do more,

ensuring that construction materials can going to build houses, schools on all of the things denied in gaza. what i would here is if we do that, hamas will exploit it all. we now know what the reality was. to concrete and steel and electric wiring, maybe there was an enormous shortage above the surface, but no shortage a low ground. implicationsy has for what one does now when you have to rebuild and help rebuild because there has been a terrible human toll that has been taken to the conflict. now? it isappen understandable there will be a push diplomatically to see what we can do on the israeli-palestinian conflict.

that is the certainty and not surprising. understandable. there has been a terrible toll taken. the idea you will focus only on a cease-fire tends to ignore the nature of the conflict. i think we also have to take a am aback and ask ourselves what is achievable? is the prime minister going to be in a situation where he can pick up where the negotiating process was left off with secretary kerry? the one thing we know for the preoccupation with security will go up, not down. the israeli population, while they may do soul-searching in the aftermath and may look at this as another conflict that does not have a decisive end, the idea of the aftermath of surrounding -- surrendering territory will not necessarily strike a responsive chord. so i do not assume in the immediate aftermath that we will

see a great deal of openness to now go in deal and tackle the core issues of the conflict. nor will i see such an impulse on the palestinian side. hamas never responded to the principles president obama responded, principles that else with the conflict. and if he did not respond at that point because he felt -- fell from his standpoint the price of doing so was too high, the idea that now he would think about at a time when emotions will be raw when it comes to the israelis that this would be a time when he went feel himself more capable of making compromises toward the israelis, i think that strains the balance. he certainly will want to prove relevance in the aftermath but the capacity to make compromises will decline, not increase. will on each side there

not be an impulse to resolve the conflict and there will be an impulse to launch a diplomatic initiative, what do you do? the choices cannot be that either you do nothing more tried to resolve the conflict. i do not see the wherewithal to resolve the conflict right now but that cannot be an argument for doing nothing. we know what happens when you do nothing. you create a vacuum in the worst possible forces still the vacuum. what is that the administration should have in mind now as it approaches diplomacy? considerationsve and aims in mind. they should be achievable and the consideration should take account for the new realities. recognizeideration, there is a different strategic alignment in the region. and that egypt, jordan, saudi arabia and the emirates will have a certain approach and that

approach will be one that on the one hand is geared towards ensuring hamas does not gain out of the conflict but also will reflect a greater interest on trying to reinsert the palestinian authority into gaza as a way of limitation -- limiting hamas and in this sense, setting it back. that needs to be something we keep in mind. we need to keep in mind not only weause it is a reality but will find it locked on their own without us. the second consideration and aim needs to be unique to recognize who hamas is. ,he essence of who hamas is having demonstrated clearly rather than using the building materials to enhance the material -- the population, they used it as part of their determination to continue the fight against israel. they will continue to fight

israel. accepty well choose to cease-fires for certain amount of time but they choose to fight .t the time our approach towards hamas should not be to somehow recognize them as a player we have to deal with. our approach should be how do we enhance the possibility to discredit hamas over time. it will not be something you can do simultaneously but something we can do as a strategy over time. here i would say we have to have a near-term approach and long-term approach. in the near-term there will be a need to rebuild gaza. anyone who led the article that let the washington times and post today about the level of destruction, in terms of simple industry am a water, electricity and the like realizes there will have to be a rebuilding of gaza.

to bewill also have safeguards. it is obvious if there are not safeguards, hamas will exploit not to hope the people rebuild but to rebuild the military infrastructure, which has been set back i think fairly significantly. so how do we safeguards that? you will have to have mechanisms in place on the ground. how it is open, when it is open needs to be tied to the safe arts, needs to be tied to the mechanisms created, mechanisms that give you a high level of competence on the and use of materials. the palestinian authority should be inserted but not only the palestinian authority. hamas willty is that find ways to course or intimidate that presence.

so i think one thing that needs to be done is to focus on who is there, if for no other reason not to create an alternative in terms of wherewithal but at least to create the terms and inhibit hamas in terms of threat they make against the presence. i would like to see the moroccans, jordanians and europeans also established presence. to be courtededs native i think with the egyptians as well. that is a near-term approach. i think it is very important the administration as soon the mantle of organizing a massive -- four plans or gaza gaza. it should be organized or not implemented unless hamas is prepared to disarm. some people say they will not disarm. that is their choice. abilitye clear that the

not just to rebuild gaza but to -- is available and if hamas chooses to block that is pursuit of continuing resistance of fighting over then development of palestinians. i would also note what i am saying is not just an argument, inherently logical. under what circumstances could we rationalize major new investments in gaza if hamas holds it in its hand to destroy all of the investment when it launches a new round? so the more can be done the more over time i think it presents hamas with a choice. pretty clear to me what choice they will take but also will do much more to discredit hamas over time. mike made the point that if you look at the polling in advance of the conflict, on the eve of

the conflict hamas standing in gaza was extremely low. the fact is i do not expect it to be low today. i think the focus of most is on the destruction and loss they experienced and they will blame israelis, not hamas. as the dust settles more and more, they will come back to where they were prior to the conflict, and if hamas is seen as blocking what is available for palestinians, seems to me that will add to the potential. also, i think it is time for us to do much more to build up what is possible in the west bank. that means building the stock in terms of what it can deliver, and this has a lot of different elements to it. one immediate thing, secretary

kerry a year ago was focused on an initiative to bring $4 billion in investment to the west bank. i think it is critical that it be focused largely on afrastructure and israel has role to play here. one thing israel has to do is i would say designate someone in the prime minister's office to make sure it becomes easier to invest, not harder, and when building materials and goods are imports, they cannot languish there and stay there for weeks and months at a time. that is the reality today. the fourth recommendation is we need to focus on conflict management.

we have to do something and have to try to change the dynamic between is and -- israelis and palestinians. one way to do that is a parallel set of steps. it is one thing we can be proposing. think it would have a real impact on palestinians. areas for housing construction for palestinians and maybe an industrial park. maybe also to own some of the rock quarries. all of this could make a difference and demonstrate something material is changing on the ground. to be done,oing something that is significant to palestinians, what they would do in return as a commitment to us or i guess continue inno longer pursue actions

the international organizations designed to put pressure on the israelis or create symbolism of palestinians staging in a way that drives them to a defensive crowd. the perp this changes the dynamic between the two sides, and begins to change the landscape in a way that allows what is not politically possible today on the more fundamental issues to be possible over time. the last recommendation is for us to try to persuade the israeli prime minister to bring israel settlement policy into line and be consistent with the declared support for two states. the reason this has a value is it seems to be twofold. one, israel will face increasing .fforts clearly the prime minister recognizes that because he met with the foreign press yesterday

and was focused heavily in terms of trying to account for it explains regret over his the casualties but focusing on who was responsible for it, meaning hamas. the purpose reaching out was to change the perception and narrative out there, particularly in europe. thing that drives this is the impression that israel is not serious about a two state approach. one is building settlements in the palestinian state. if you want to defuse the movement, there is no single step israel could take that would have a bigger impact than that. also doing something of that select that makes it clear israel favors a two state outcome and would send a signal to those who are part of a new .lignment in the arab world it would make it easier for many

think about initiative they could take or to be responsible for that. it seems to me if we're going to take account of the landscape, we need to think about the different kinds of things that can be done that not only recognized the strategic alignment but also allow you to somehow build on it. the key to what i am describing is we need to recognize not only the the new factors in the region but the diplomacy that allows us to be affected. i think it is fair to say at this point the u.s. could use signs of success in terms of diplomacy. what we do not need to do is stake out positions that by definition he cannot achieve. this would allow you to fulfill

objectives setting out. this meets the test of the state crowd. [applause] >> thank you. a lot of policy recommendations to chew over. session, we a q&a have another half an hour to go into this in great depth with both of our speakers. i wanted to throw out a number of issues that came up by inference. directly in this conversation. perhaps they will come up as we proceed. first, both speakers quite rightly referred to the quest for disarmament and the

challenge of capacity. i think the capacity question, who is going to do it, whether the very near term or the midterm or even the long-term, who can do it and how? good will matter what there is for the idea of having , aspa take up positions dennis said, there is a capacity question in that they will need support. stored -- straw in the wind over the next several days will be worthwhile the reconsideration on part of the israelis of external actors playing the role. we heard from arcs by the foreign minister of israel about this.

is a different with out of the prime minister's office about this. is this real? well -- will there be a role possibly on the ground for external actors? muslim, perhaps other international actors to play a role with inspection regimes, disarmament regimes of various sorts. that is one question. the second question has to do with the money. dennis i think quite rightly spoke about the alignment of like-minded states. also, the alignment of like-minded act there's on the negative side. example. for there is a fundamental disconnect being a principal source of money that might flow into gaza coming from problematic actors and is there an alternative source that we

can think of? the alignment of good actors be a source of money that can be better at controlled and better thatcted? third question quite likely will come up, at least on the political level and we will see whether it emerges as a policy question, has to do enra.under a -- useful way the most to direct this question has to do with the issue of capacity we mentioned a moment ago and was part of the comments. there will be a considerable couldn't -- critique when the dust is settled about areas gaza.s of operations in i hope the way this ends up, if

is how up with a change can the pa, if it is going to be deployed in gaza, how can it inherit the funds, assets and responsibility, and their five be strengthened on the ground in gaza? there is no particular some if not all of the schools and hospitals cannot be administered by the pa administrate of health and not by outside international organization. inheriting the funding that currently goes there. not to suggest a news to go out of business tomorrow, quite the contrary. there may be legitimate refugee needs that should continue to be handled by an organization, but traditional functions of the

government that the pa could do, they would benefit if they had the funds and assets and would benefit on the ground. one last comment because all of this had to do really or touched on the question of who will do this, who will orchestrate into it? lead? is the u.s. up to mikewas a subtext to both and dennis remarks. bluntly mike say quite the u.s. was less relevant to what just happened in gaza. to the attainment of the cease-fire. to take on, to revisit what are the priorities in this part of

the world and what sort of leadership are we going to be projecting so we are seeing this played out in iraq and serious as we speak. will the united states take a forward leaning role in helping orchestrate a response to isis and pushing back? today the news is whether the united states will use air power to help those struggling with starvation, thirst and other destruction. reactive.s very here i think all of the remarks of my colleagues point toward not a reactive posture but the need for an active posture, one that is coordinated very well between the white house and state department. a big challenge, a lot on the table. we will see whether or not going from shooting to talking actually means durable and

foring situation palestinians and israelis. let me turn now to your questions for the panelists. we will start in the center here . if you could take a microphone. point to whom you're asking. >> i am always the pessimist in the room. i kept hoping to hear something about change of mindset. think it has been reinforced his real ball pretty much taken its heels because of the security concern. the palestinians will dig in their heels just because. to dig in continue its heels. i am wondering, what can we do, because you can argue the point hamas may have been driven by the political issues it faced but also had the failed peace

process. so what can we do to change mindsets? regime change is not possible that i think nothing will happen and even the ideas , possiblesuggested palestinian authority -- argument, people will argue, what about the state? so what do we do now? what do we do about the mindset? that is actually what i was trying to get at. you do not change our mindset like a light switch where you flip it and suddenly it changes. what we're dealing with has been the onset of disbelief. not the loss of confidence. confidence is something you

restore. believe it is like faith. once you lose it, not so easy to reestablish it. what i was trying to get at is we have to change the dynamic between israelis and palestinians and change the character of interaction and at least in the west bank that is why i want to focus on what could be a parallel step of what could be an the realm of what could be done right now and if you do that, over time that could change the mind trip -- nine set overtime. one thing i want to stay away go out to say we will and end the conflict. and if that become so deeply you cannot turn it around, then it becomes prophecy. the question you're asking is how do we change the mindset so

what is disbelief can be turned into believe again? we did not always have the situation but we have it today. i think how we approach the do wenge right now is how create a new dynamic that gives us potential to restore overtime believability again in peace between palestinians. >> you have mentioned conflict resolution -- management. the realignment in the arab world would indicate there might be a more willingness for conflict resolution in terms of arab peace plan. this would transfer

responsibility for those who do to take care of it. something the u.s. should recommit? also, if i am right, i have not ben secretary kerry seems to still in resolution mode and not in management mode. is that correct? >> i think you would be better off asking secretary kerry that. my sense is he is pretty -- pretty realistic and when he looks at what the possibilities are coming he looks at what can be done. when you focus on what can be done it does not mean you lose sight of what could be done. it means there has to be a sequence to what you do.

your sights on something that you cannot achieve, you lessen your own abilities to achieve a eight are on. -- later on. yourr the first part of question, i would not exclude looking at the peace initiative. i think there is value in doing that because that is the mantle under which other arab states would be prepared to be involved at all. i do not think their preoccupation is with peacemaking right now. iran andt is a ran -- muslim brotherhood. to the extent peacemaking might help as far as the objections are concerned, they might well play a role, but you need to get them the mantle under which to do it. that is why i think there could

be value. again discussing the arab peace initiative. >> i was a member of the israeli negotiating team in the last round of talks. one of my strongest conclusions is if you try to get the parties together now to resolve the conflict, bring about a comprehensive agreement, you will not succeed for numerous reasons. do not have time to elaborate. so while we have an opportunity now, i think we should calibrate expect haitians as to what could and could not be done. i would certainly support what use of theid, making palestinian interest in terms of gaza and a role in

they could play a role in controlling border passages on the palestinian side. they could play a role in channeling humanitarian assistance to gaza. they could play a role to public to people who belong to hamas security. those are the same people who fired rockets on us. i would not pay salaries to anybody. i do not expect them to take over gaza. i do not think they want to do it but could certainly play a role in gaining a foothold in gaza. on the west bank, again, i would commend smaller measures ,longside what dennis said

settlement activities beyond the blocks, encouraging bottom-up process of capacity building on the palestinian side, the commit not to launch a political and legal campaign against israel in the international arena. these are the things that are practical and could be done. beyond that, i believe unfortunately you will fail and there is a price to failing. >> thank you. >> thank you. i am a palestinian journalist. i am amazed how gaza is treated as if they are on a different planet. that, what role did the latest war on gaza play on bringing those west bank and

gaza putting it back together on roleand and does it play a in positions where we see an unbridled settlement activity? thank you. think in an ironic way it has brought gaza and the west closer together. psychologically you can understand that. i think one of the ironies, you probably have on the israeli side much greater openness to having the pa find ways to be reinserted back into gaza, and internationally you will have support for that more so than before. so i do think there is the potential to do more. i think it is one of the possible openings that may emerge from this conflict, and i

think it is something worth pursuing because there is a converging interest here. side, on the settlement mike and i said the same thing, i see this as a moment where it is in israel's interest to bring the approach to settlement building in line with the declared commitment to to state. israel buildsme, what it think will be part of israel and not what it thinks will be part of the palestinian state. tactically that means you do not build to the east of the security barrier. at the same time, and the israelis would say we are prepared to negotiate a border that would define only where we build until we can negotiate the border, we will carry out the policy because it is in the interest of israel to have a policy consistent with what it declares with regard to two states.

i think that will make a big difference when it comes to the movement right now. roger and then right next to roger. >> i would like to raise a contingency with both speakers. if hamas is so weekend in the course of the conflict, the uc much of a danger or threat from any of the more radical groups >> mikever from hamas? is about to say something. >> please go to the website where matt leavitt has an article on this topic. responding to the comment of general flynn 10 days ago saying the alternative to hamas is isis . his argument is the alternative is definitely not isis and may

even the something far more moderate. te.org.ashingtoninsitu >> all i can say is i agree with matt levitt. it is true there are jihad groups in gaza, including some allegiancelay -- pay notsis but i think they are dominant and weak and not an immediate challenge. ifbe over the long run, hamas is weekend, others could come to the floor, but right now in the immediate future i do not see an immediate threat. >> [inaudible] i think the question is mainly to the general. some in the united states in mainly in israel have suggested israel despite that increasing

international pressure should have actually removed hamas from power. why the out well israeli government may have a problem with doing that, but i am curious if you could follow the scenario out. what happened if israel tried to do that? did they make a mistake in doing that from the point that hamas will never give up power if they could avoid that. you bring up the pa, which is highly corrupt. does not suggest it would succeed as somehow evil thing hamas out of control of gaza and we will inevitably, according to these people, will have a conflict that will be worse in several years. they do believe it is right in going all the way. they set the goal at long-term to terrance. -- deterrence.

in order to destroy hamas, you would have to go into gaza. you would have to stay there for a long time in order to dismantle the infrastructure and .rofessional judgment at least a year, some people say 1-3 years would pay a very heavy price politically. so they would quietly encourage denouncet publicly israel and criticize it for doing so. ultimately, as i said, the exit strategy is not clear. i doo you hand it over to? not believe they really want to and form groups

there. even if we crush them, i can tell you from my own experience in 2008 when we launched the operation we had meetings with the palestinian leadership and asked them, if we go in, would you like to follow us and take over? they said no. .ou go and crush hamas they were very reluctant to go in and take over. so let's not forget israel has with challenges on its plate. it is a volatile region. everything is unresolved. we have isis, instability along the borders in syria and lebanon . so i do not think it is an israel's interest to get drawn into that for such a long time. have ae is that we

better chance of establishing long-term cease-fire because of the weakness, because of the egyptian role, because the international community would play a more productive role in at least preventing the hamas and of amoss -- rehabilitating gaza on the other. think this is also good for israel's interest in the western interest because they have more to lose. we have a chance of achieving a long-term cease-fire. >> thank you. put your hand up. >> thank you very much for your presentation. my craft, counterterrorism specialist. attacks have a

tendency to disrupt things in the middle east. do you think the government is strong enough now to resist or deal with a major terrorist attack if it comes up, either by suicide bombers or some group popping up from attempt that was not found? questionaterial following up on the question about settlements, do you think it is strong enough to resist pressure from the right wing to asnowledge new settlements part of the price for making concessions for palestinians, either on opening up the border a bit more or other moves? >> i think as far as coping with terrorist threats, i think the government is strong enough to deal with that and have been backed by the public. washis round i think there wide concern of israel. over 80% of what the government

did. they need to respond to what hamas did with rockets and so on . this drove millions of people to bomb shelters across israel. on the second question, i am not an expert on the domestic political scene in israel. as far as you settlement activities are concerned, if you look at the time since the peace talks nowed in late april, until this was the quietest. i do not know if it says anything about the future, but it was the quietest. what the palestinian authority ,oes and if it wants to do more i just do not know, but

obviously this government has a very strong component of , but iing parties in it think the prime minister has nationaln there is a , it was underake heavy pressure from the ministers to go into gaza, destroy hamas, not to agree to a cease-fire and did not heed that advice. in the very far back. equal opportunity here. >> i would like to ask our guest about what they think about the countries, like how the countries qatar and turkey may

have contributed to the resolution of the gaza crisis or impeded it. the state department called these countries -- secretary kerry always called it as counterpart of the country he saw a role in the country, the fact that these countries are the only ones being able to get in touch with fact, and as a matter of i was wondering if you think may have faked the rule that israel and turkey have no political tie at the moment because the prime said to win the election for presidency. >> turkey part of the problem or solution? >> part of the problem.

>> you want a quick answer? part of the problem. tohink that turkey and qatar find their role as being representative of hamas. they are not prepared to put pressure on hamas. they want hamas to gain out of this, and the truth is they have no real leverage. that they can talk to hamas is one thing. qatar could not get the money because i had a go through egypt. egypt had the leverage. maybe the relationship is not what it was before, but hamas badly wants them open. turkey cannot affect that. it has a terrible relationship with egypt right now. so egypt is the key player. point for trying to calm things down and move forward. that is where the focal point

should be. i believe qatar and turkey would like hamas to control the palestinian national movement, not pa but hamas. the problem with the proposal at was the problem in israel and egypt. ,his is a public reference which is unprecedented that i can remember. they wantedwas not them to play a role but they try to establish an alternative -- >> we will leave the hearing at this point, just a few minutes left. going live now to capitol hill as a house panel examines

whether that ebola outbreak in africa is a public health threat to the u.s. and the response in africa to contain the virus. dr. tom friedman, center for disease control set to testify this afternoon along with state department and usaid -- usaid officials. this is just about to get underway.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> the subcommittee will come to order. good afternoon to everyone. i called this emergency hearing during recess to address a grave answer is health threat which has in recent weeks ripped the mass media and heighten public fears of an epidemic of the ebola virus. what we hope to gain from today's hearing is a realistic understanding of what we are up against while avoiding sensationalism. ebola is a severe and often fatal disease that first